National Angus Conference

Importance of Beef Carcass Value

J. Brad Morgan

Oklahoma State University

U.S. Standard

U.S. Standard

Yield Grade 4/5

Yield Grade 4/5Heavy Weight Carcass

Yield Grade 4/5

Dark Cutting Beef

Yield Grade 4/5

Heavy Weight Carcass

Yield Grade 4/5

Too Heavy Carcass

Ribeye Too Small

U.S. Standard

$757.00 Range in

Carcass Value

National Beef Quality Audit

• Fourth such audit -- 1991, 1995, 2000, and 2005.

• Survey of producer-related issues:– Management– Genetics

• Focus on end-products of beef production.• Used as a basis for many cattle producers and

animal scientists:– Benchmark to compare to.– Google Search: Over 500,000 web pages!

National Beef Quality Audit -- 2005

• Three phases:– Surveys of the industry, including end-users– In-plant data collection for slaughter and

cooler characteristics– Establishment of goals for 2010

• In-plant data collection over two time periods:– June through September, 2005– March through June, 2006

Data Collection Locations

Location

Brawley Beef – Brawley, CA

Cargill Meat Solutions – Dodge City, KS

Cargill Meat Solutions – Plainview, TX

Cargill Meat Solutions – Schuyler, NE

Greater Omaha Packing – Omaha, NE

Harris Ranch Beef – Selma, CA

Kane Packing Co. – Corpus Christi, TX

Smithfield Beef – Green Bay, WI

Smithfield Beef – Souderton, PA

Swift & Co. – Grand Island, NE

Swift & Co. – Greeley, CO

Swift & Co. – Hyrum, UT

Tyson Fresh Meats – Amarillo, TX

Tyson Fresh Meats – Boise, ID

Tyson Fresh Meats – Joslin, IL

Washington Beef – Toppinish, WA

Top Ten Beef Quality Defects: End Users

(1) Lack of uniformity/consistency in marbling and tenderness.

(2) Cuts are too large for foodservice & restaurant trade.

(3) Excess fat.(4) Abscesses/lesions in cuts, trimmings &

variety meats.(5) Blood-splashed muscle.

Greatest Improvements: End Users

(1) Improved microbiological safety.

(2) Improved cattle genetics (i.e., more Angus) and beef of higher USDA Quality Grades.

(3) Fewer injection-site lesions.

Future Issues for the Beef Industry:End Users

• New bacterial pathogens (especially MDR strains).• Additional BSE issues.• Market access & export requirements (age and

source verification, a must).• Price of beef so high that it cannot compete.• Eating inconsistencies.• Animals keep getting bigger (weight/size

problems).

Global Perceptions of Beef Quality

The Global “Gold Standard” for Beef Quality

• U.S. Prime

Top Five Terms for Simply Describing Exemplary Quality in U.S. Beef

• U.S. Prime• U.S. Choice• Certified Angus Beef• U.S. Beef (in general)• Corn-fed

In the Global Community:• The perception of U.S. beef

flavor: “Excellent” = 70%; “Very Good” = 30%

• The perception of U.S. beef tenderness: “Very Good” = 100%

Beef Quality Concerns of Those Who Trade Beef to Export Markets

Top Five Beef Quality Concerns:• Unknown age and source (need mandatory ID and traceability)• Size and weight variability• Insufficient marbling• Dull and dark lean color• Administration of growth-promoting implants

Other concerns:• Feeding vitamin E should be mandatory• Appropriate animal welfare should be assured• Tenderness should be genetically assured• Beef is excessively fat• Should be injection-site free

Beef Carcasses from which Cuts were Eligible for Export Under BEV-Japan

• 4,625,827 carcasses were presented for grading during this period (12/12/05 - 1/23/06).

• 312,522 (6.75%) qualified under BEV-Japan.

• 255,497 (5.52%) were approved by “A40 Certification.”

• 57,025 (1.23%) were approved by “Age Verification.”

Source: Justin Ransom (LSP, AMS-USDA) NBQA–2005

National Beef Quality Audit -- 2005: In-Plant Data Collection

• Slaughter floor:– Mud, horns, hide color, brands, identification– Bruises, livers, lungs, heads, tongues– Dentition

• Cooler:– USDA Quality Grades– USDA Yield Grades– Apparent breed type -- native, dairy, Bos indicus– Gender, fat color, blood splash, callous– Over 30 months of age

Brands, Horns, & Bruises: 1991 - 2005

All 2005 numbers are the

best ever!

Livers & Tongues: 1991 - 2005

USDA Quality Grade: 1991-2005

*** *** Best Result Ever

Ideal vs. Actual Quality Grade Consist

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

%

Prime TopChoice

LowChoice

Select Standardand lower

IdealActual

Hot Carcass Weight: 1991-2005

USDA Yield Grade: 1991-2005

Steer and Heifer Comparison

816.9

758.3

700

750

800

850

Carcass weight, pounds

Steers

Heifers

0.50

0.57

0.48

0.53

0.58

Fat thickness, inches

Steers

Heifers

2.1

2.5

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

KPH, %

Steers

Heifers

13.4 13.4

12.5

13.0

13.5

14.0

Ribeye area, sq. inches

Steers

Heifers

Ideal vs. Actual Yield Grade Consist

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

%

YG 1 YG 2 YG 3 YG 4 YG 5

IdealActual

Contributors to Lost Opportunities – Carcass TraitsYG 4 & 5 14.1%Carcass weight 5.5%Standard & lower 5.4%Dark cutters 1.9%C-E maturity 1.5%> 30 months 0.8%Blood splash 0.6%Yellow fat 0.3%Callous 0.1%

No defects 77.5%

Lost Opportunities (per head) Due To:

Quality Grade -$26.81

Yield Grade -$20.92

Weight -$4.94

Hide and Offal -$3.01

Total -$55.68

Top Ten Quality Challenges (SW of NBQA -- 2005)

SOURCE: Deb Roeber (Oklahoma State University) October 2005.

(1) Lack of traceability/IAID/source & age verification/chronological age

(2) Low uniformity of cattle, carcasses & cuts

(3) Need to implement instrument grading

(4) Inappropriate market signals

(5) Segmentation within and among industry sectors

(6) Too heavy carcasses & cuts

(7) Too high Yield Grades (low cutability)

(8) Inappropriate ribeye size

(9) Reduced QG & tenderness due to implants

(10) Insufficient marbling

SOURCE: Strategy Workshop of the NBQA -- 2005

(Oklahoma City, OK) October 2005.

(1) Developing "story" beef.

(2) Reducing E.coli O157:H7.

(3) Merchandising "quick" (to prepare) beef.

(4) Merchandising new beef "value" cuts.

(5) Reducing excess fat cover, at the end-user level.

(6) Developing "brands" of beef.

(7) Increasing beef demand.

(8) Making the industry profitable.

What Is The Beef Industry Doing Well?